The thing about patches is that they're a constant delivery device. There aren't many of us who feel comfortable with a steady stream of our drug of choice. We want an initial surge and a slow decline, and we want to control the process.

My brother tried using Chantix for awhile and in a few short weeks it quite literally was driving him crazy. It took a few attempts, but he did eventually manage to quit the hard way.

My personal experience was that quitting cigarettes was one of the hardest things I ever did. And the most rewarding. Once I did that I realized that I could achieve practically anything if I wanted it that badly. I really hope everyone who tries to quit succeeds so they can know that feeling.

I was the same way. Objective scientific information might have swayed me and convinced me not to start though. I don't remember this sort of information being available in the 50's. My pediatrician smoked. My boy scout troop leader smoked. Most of my teachers smoked (in the teachers' lounge), even our gym teacher smoked. My parents didn't smoke but most my friends' parents, almost all of whom were professors or professor's wives, did. One of my grandfathers didn't smoke and lived to be 89. The other smoked cigars and died of heart disease at 63.

Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in President Barack Obama's health care law, according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.

For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.

Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration. But older smokers could face a heavy hit on their household budgets at a time in life when smoking-related illnesses tend to emerge.

Younger smokers could be charged lower penalties under rules proposed last fall by the Obama administration.

Does that really make sense? Shouldn't it be reversed? Charge higher penalties/taxes to younger smokers as they will potentially have more years to cost society in lost production and "free" health care.

Charge older retired or retiring smokers lower penalties/taxes, encourage them to keep smoking and die sooner. After all, at their age, the older smokers are no longer contributing. The sooner they die, the less they cost the rest of us.

Meade wrote:Charge older retired or retiring smokers lower penalties/taxes, encourage them to keep smoking and die sooner. After all, at their age, the older smokers are no longer contributing. The sooner they die, the less they cost the rest of us.

"Charge older retired or retiring smokers lower penalties/taxes, encourage them to keep smoking and die sooner. After all, at their age, the older smokers are no longer contributing. The sooner they die, the less they cost the rest of us."

You tell us then, snoqueen - what will make the Affordable Care Act affordable? Affordability was the primary goal of our public policy deciders, right? Otherwise, they would have titled it the "Humane Care Act" or the "High Quality Care Act" or the "Equal Liberal Progressive Care Act". So yeah, if I get your tacit drift, "affordable" sounds rather eugenic-y and nazi-y, doesn't it?

And even then - why pick on people addicted to tobacco? Don't they already pay enough taxes and penalties as it is? Why not pick on heavy drinkers or fat people, people with birth defects or those with mental illnesses?